Just being able to identify "line 21" in a split second borders on the phenomenal.

and

You're right, Mark! It isn't that difficult.

I have very bad eyesight, and I managed to do fairly well just now.

So which is it?

It's clear what the method was: make an estimate and if wrong, miscall the actual count as the line number first said. Dani DaOrtiz does the same thing with cards--purposely miscounts the cards if his declared estimation was off.

When I suggested that the identification of the proper line was an exceptional ability in itself, I was comparing it to the average human being, not necessarily the average magician. And also to my own presumed incapacity.

But that is not really the most amazing part of the trick. It surely takes an unusual skill to either memorise an entire page well in advance or to instantaneously memorise an entire line on stage.

There seems to be a doubt as to whether Chan forced a pre-determined page number, or simply watched the volunteer to see which page he or she must have seen.

He might have done it in seveal ways in his career, but I think the evidence that we have suggests that it was pre-determined.

In both the older (1960) book test video and the Parkinson interview, the force page was "80".

I believe that Canasta chose this number because it is amongst the easiest for the participant to distinguish, its characters being simpler than most of the others. The "8" and the "0" consist largely of circles and are more readily recognised than "52", "73", "91", etc.

performer wrote:Oh, have you two stopped arguing? What a pity! Something to do with the Christmas spirit I suppose.

Performer, you have enjoyed the back and forth of Mr. Keyes and Mr. Henderson. You almost seem to be waxing nostalgic. Perhaps the exchange is taking you back to a Punch and Judy show you once saw in Blackpool?

performer wrote:Oh, have you two stopped arguing? What a pity! Something to do with the Christmas spirit I suppose.

I can go forever, Mark.I think maybe Brad realises this.

It's sort of what I've been hinting at, the secret of successful debating. Have an inexhaustible source of material in support of your argument, and go against a mere nay-sayer. Trip them up here and there and they'll get tired of it after a while.

when i see anything that remotely resembles support for keyes 'arguments' then i will concede that i am in a debate. but keyes has made himself clear, he has no interest in actually learning or improving. but he is mistaken if he thinks i will stop. I will not let misinformed ideas to stand without comment. and so far that seems to describe every utterance keyes has made.

perhaps he will tell us again how the audience knows we have lied unless we are incompetent, or demonstrates that audiences think any differently of a verbal lie v a non verbal one, or shows that audiences care at all in the first place.

he has admitted that magic to him is nothing more than creating illusions for an audience to figure out. he is a puzzlernot a magician.

those who follow his advice risk becoming nothing more than the same.

but he has inspired me to present my own version of the resurrection. i ask my audience if there is a dead body laying about. I, of course, don't allow them to take a pulse or check for respiration, i only allow them assume that the body they discover laying prostrate in the parlor is dead. If couese they will assume that because everyone has dead bodies in their parlors.

then after 15 minutes of unscripted rambling delivered in an unconvincing british accent, punctuated by meaningless and over wrought pauses, i will command the body to move.

the audience will consider this miraculous because they convinced themself the body was dead by virtue of my having asked them if they saw one laying around.

Brad Henderson wrote:when i see anything that remotely resembles support for keyes 'arguments' then i will concede that i am in a debate. but keyes has made himself clear, he has no interest in actually learning or improving. but he is mistaken if he thinks i will stop. I will not let misinformed ideas to stand without comment. and so far that seems to describe every utterance keyes has made.

perhaps he will tell us again how the audience knows we have lied unless we are incompetent, or demonstrates that audiences think any differently of a verbal lie v a non verbal one, or shows that audiences care at all in the first place.

he has admitted that magic to him is nothing more than creating illusions for an audience to figure out. he is a puzzlernot a magician.

those who follow his advice risk becoming nothing more than the same.

but he has inspired me to present my own version of the resurrection. i ask my audience if there is a dead body laying about. I, of course, don't allow them to take a pulse or check for respiration, i only allow them assume that the body they discover laying prostrate in the parlor is dead. If couese they will assume that because everyone has dead bodies in their parlors.

then after 15 minutes of unscripted rambling delivered in an unconvincing british accent, punctuated by meaningless and over wrought pauses, i will command the body to move.

the audience will consider this miraculous because they convinced themself the body was dead by virtue of my having asked them if they saw one laying around.

should work.

I suppose I would reiterate my answers to these questions that you claim I have not adequately addessed, but I rather like your "resurrection" idea, so I will give you my version.

I have put a lot of thought into ancient mysteries of this sort, and engaged in many debates about "miracles" and what not.

Now, the first thing is to distinguish between a theatrical act like the one you propose and "the real thing", I.e., the cheating of death by crucifixion, for instance.

Let us consider how a man like Jesus might have done it.

My theory is that he was prepared to die, having incurred the wrath of Caiaphas, but that his survival instincts coupled with his brilliant wits enabled him to perform the feat.

One way to manage it would be to get seriously drunk on wine after the "last supper". Indeed, to imbibe all he could into the wee hours so as to render himself as senseless as possible. Thus he could easily pass up the myrrh that was offered hin on the morrow, although it would make bearing the cross extremely difficult. Perhaps that's why he stumbled.

Anyway, the hardest part would be btacing himself for the initial horror of being nailed to the wooden frame and consequently lifted to an upright position, his entire body weight exacerbating the agony.

It is considered a fact of medical science that most victins of crucifixion died not of loss of blood, but from cardiac arrest or "heart attack". If a man could distract himself from the pain or meditate on something else, he might stay alive where others perished.

I should think the man wise enough to induce his own unconsciousness, to faint at this point. Many would presume hin dead of course.

Then if he had the good fortune of a rain storm, the crowd would disperse, leaving only a centuruan, Joseph of Arimathea and Mary Magdalene.

The water might soothe his burning flesh and gently awaken him, his wounds no doubt making him numb all over, sparing him further ecstasy.

He would still appear deceased, as he would be incapable of movement after Joseph negotiated for possession of the corpse and laid it in the cart.

Joseph might have taken Jesus' body to his lodge outside of the city, and set it before a blazing hearth to dry the sodden shroud that covered the body.

In the morning, Jesus might have recovered sufficiently to move his lips, to whisper.

He might have implored Joseph to bury him, for it would not be safe to harbour a criminal in his house. He might have told him of a tomb he knew of that was already cut in the wall of the city, a place where Jesus had sought refuge on occasion.

If he wished, Joseph might look in on him from time to time, to medicate him and bring him food snd drink.

Jesus' body might have been placed in a hole in the wall that led to the Tunnel Of Hezekiah, an ancient aquaduct that brought water from The Spring Of Gihon to The Pool Of Siloam.

Though this "tomb" were sealed at its mouth, the occupant might yet be able to escape through a channel flowing with water from its source near The Garden Of Gethsemane.

The cooling liquid might truly have had healing powers, to cleanse and purify his ravaged flesh, an early use of "aqua therapy".

And when Joseph rolled the stone away, he found Jesus gone, inadvertently creating the impression that the deceased had freed himself that way.

I think that would give the audience "an experience they valued more than the truth". Don't you agree?

Beware. Remember what happened to the Bishop of Durham when he questioned the resurrection. He called it a "conjuring trick with bones" causing great controversy and demands for his resignation. It wasn't long after that his church was struck by lightning and was set on fire. I am afraid Jesus's dad has always been a bit ill tempered. If we hear in the next few days that jkeyes has been set on fire we will all know why.

The good Bishop didn't believe in the virgin birth notion either. Apart from the fact that he may have been in the wrong job his viewpoint seems eminently reasonable to me.

Jesus saith unto her, "Thy brother shall appear to, in a very visual manner rise again. Martha saith unto him, I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day. Jesus said unto her, I am the apparent resurrection though I make no outward verbal claim, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were seemingly dead, yet shall he live.

We appear to have gone from lying to Chan Canasta to Jesus who was not renowned for mendacity although I have some doubts about that walking on water thing. However the latest turn in this thread has reminded me of an old thread from a very long time ago where I discussed my visit to a Christian bookshop. Reference was made to the resurrection therein so I shall "resurrect" the thread for you now. Here you are:

I have a feeling that it would make matters worse. FAR worse! And oddly enough you would probably get Brad on your side! But don't worry, you would probably anger other people instead to make up for it!

performer wrote:I have a feeling that it would make matters worse. FAR worse! And oddly enough you would probably get Brad on your side! But don't worry, you would probably anger other people instead to make up for it!

You are probably right, Mark. It would stir things up.

But I'm used to that.

To be serious for a moment: I feel that it is a terrible injustice to perpetuate myths that, while likely based on truth, have been largely misinterpreted. The practical realities behind the illusions would be far more "ennobling" than the naive assumptions of onlookers. To believe that Moses or Jesus did The Impossible is rather humbling, because it tends to promote scepticism amongst the learned.

I hope that one day we can all appreciate and accept these legends as histories, render them yet more astonishing by daring to explain them in plausible terms.